Sei sulla pagina 1di 4

Nala v Barroso Jr.

Doctrine
In determining the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant, the
examining magistrate must make probing and exhaustive, not merely routine or pro forma
examination of the applicant and the witnesses. Probable cause must be shown by the best
evidence that could be obtained under the circumstances. The introduction of such evidence is
necessary especially where the issue is the existence of a negative ingredient of the offense
charged, e.g., the absence of a license required by law.
Facts:
On June 25, 2001, PO3 Macrino L. Alcoser applied for the issuance of a warrant to
search the person and residence of petitioner Bernard R. Nala, who was referred to in
the application as Rumolo[8] Nala alias Long[9] of Purok 4, Poblacion, Kitaotao,
Bukidnon.[10] The application was filed in connection with petitioners alleged illegal
possession of one caliber .22 magnum and one 9 mm. pistol in violation of Republic Act
No. 8294, which amended Presidential Decree No. 1866, or the law on Illegal Possession
of Firearms. On the same day, after examining Alcoser and his witness Ruel Nalagon,
respondent Presiding Judge of RTC of Malaybalay City, Branch 10, issued Search and
Seizure Warrant No. 30-01, against Romulo Nala alias Lolong Nala who is said to be
residing at Purok 4, Poblacion, Kitaotao, Bukidnon.
On July 4, 2001, Alcoser and other police officers searched petitioners house and
allegedly seized the following articles, to wit

-1- one piece caliber .38 revolver (snub-nose) with Serial Number 1125609
-1- one pc. fragmentation grenade (cacao type)
-1- one pc. .22 long barrel
-5- pcs live ammunition for caliber .38 revolver
-4- four pcs. of disposable lighter and unestimated numbers of cellophane used for packing of
shabu[

On July 5, 2001, Criminal Cases Nos. 10943-2001-P and 10944-2001-P for illegal
possession of firearms, ammunitions and explosives were filed against the petitioner
before the 5th Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Kitaotao, Bukidnon

On August 8, 2001, petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion[13] seeking to (1) quash Search and
Seizure Warrant No. 30-01; (2) declare inadmissible for any purpose the items allegedly seized
under the said warrant; and (3) direct the release of the air rifle seized by the police officers.

Respondent judge denied the Omnibus Motion to Quash but ordered the return of the air rifle
to petitioner. As to the validity of the search warrant, respondent found that probable cause
was duly established from the deposition and examination of witness Ruel Nalagon and the
testimony of PO3 Macrino L. Alcoser who personally conducted a surveillance to confirm the
information given by Nalagon. The fact that the items seized were not exactly the items listed in
the warrant does not invalidate the same because the items seized bear a direct relation to the
crime of illegal possession of firearms. Respondent judge also found that petitioner was
sufficiently identified in the warrant although his first name was erroneously stated therein as
Romulo and not Bernard, considering that the warrant was couched in terms that would
make it enforceable against the person and residence of petitioner and no other.

Issues:
1. Was petitioner sufficiently described in the search and seizure warrant?
2. Was there probable cause for the issuance of a search and seizure warrant against
petitioner?
3. Whether or not the firearms and explosive allegedly found in petitioners residence are
admissible in evidence against him even though said firearms were not listed in the
search and seizure warrant.

Held:
1. Yes
2. No
3. No

Ratio:
1. On the first issue, the failure to correctly state in the search and seizure warrant the first
name of petitioner, which is Bernard and not Romulo or Rumolo, does not invalidate
the warrant because the additional description alias Lolong Nala who is said to be residing
at Purok 4, Poblacion, Kitaotao, Bukidnon sufficiently enabled the police officers to locate
and identify the petitioner. What is prohibited is a warrant against an unnamed party, and
not one which, as in the instant case, contains a description personae that will enable the
officer to identify the accused without difficulty.

2. The probable cause for a valid search warrant has been defined as such facts and
circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an
offense has been committed, and that objects sought in connection with the offense are in
the place sought to be searched. This probable cause must be shown to be within the
personal knowledge of the complainant or the witnesses he may produce and not based
on mere hearsay.[21] In determining its existence, the examining magistrate must make
a probing and exhaustive, not merely routine or pro forma examination of the applicant
and the witnesses.[22] Probable cause must be shown by the best evidence that could be
obtained under the circumstances. On the part of the applicant and witnesses, the
introduction of such evidence is necessary especially where the issue is the existence of a
negative ingredient of the offense charged, e.g., the absence of a license required by
law.[23] On the other hand, the judge must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavits
but must make his own extensive inquiry on the existence of such license, as well as on
whether the applicant and the witnesses have personal knowledge thereof.

In the case at bar, the search and seizure warrant was issued in connection with the offense
of illegal possession of firearms, the elements of which are (1) the existence of the subject
firearm; and (2) the fact that the accused who owned or possessed it does not have the
license or permit to possess the same.[26] Probable cause as applied to illegal possession
of firearms would therefore be such facts and circumstances which would lead a
reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that a person is in possession of a firearm
and that he does not have the license or permit to possess the same. Nowhere, however,
in the affidavit and testimony of witness Ruel Nalagon nor in PO3 Macrino L. Alcosers
application for the issuance of a search warrant was it mentioned that petitioner had no
license to possess a firearm. While Alcoser testified before the respondent judge that the
firearms in the possession of petitioner are not licensed, this does not qualify as personal
knowledge but only personal belief because neither he nor Nalagon verified, much
more secured, a certification from the appropriate government agency that petitioner was
not licensed to possess a firearm. This could have been the best evidence obtainable to
prove that petitioner had no license to possess firearms and ammunitions, but the police
officers failed to present the same.

Witnesses only stated seeing the accused with a .22 magnum and a 9mm pistol in the
market/firing etc.

Prohibited articles may be seized but only as long as the search is valid. In this case, it was
not because: 1) there was no valid search warrant; and 2) absent such a warrant, the right
thereto was not validly waived by the petitioner. In short, the military officers who entered
the petitioners premises had no right to be there and therefore had no right either to seize
the pistol and bullets.[32]

Conformably, the articles allegedly seized in the house of petitioner cannot be used as
evidence against him because access therein was gained by the police officer using a void
search and seizure warrant. It is as if they entered petitioners house without a warrant,
making their entry therein illegal, and the items seized, inadmissible.

Moreover, it does not follow that because an offense is malum prohibitum, the subject
thereof is necessarily illegal per se. Motive is immaterial in mala prohibita, but the subjects
of this kind of offense may not be summarily seized simply because they are prohibited. A
warrant is still necessary,[33] because possession of any firearm becomes unlawful only if
the required permit or license therefor is not first obtained.[34]

So also, admissibility of the items seized cannot be justified under the plain view doctrine.
It is true that, as an exception, the police officer may seize without warrant illegally
possessed firearm, or any contraband for that matter, inadvertently found in plain view.
However, said officer must have a prior right to be in the position to have that view of the
objects to be seized. The plain view doctrine applies when the following requisites concur:
(a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an
intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area; (b) the discovery of the
evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the
item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.
The law enforcement officer must lawfully make an initial intrusion or properly be in a
position from which he can particularly view the area. In the course of such lawful intrusion,
he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. The object must
be open to eye and hand and its discovery inadvertent.[35]

No presumption of regularity may be invoked in aid of the process when the officer
undertakes to justify an encroachment of rights secured by the Constitution. In this case,
the firearms and explosive were found at the rear portion of petitioners house[36] but
the records do not show how exactly were these items discovered. Clearly, therefore, the
plain view doctrine finds no application here not only because the police officers had no
justification to search the house of petitioner (their search warrant being void for lack of
probable cause), but also because said officers failed to discharge the burden of proving
that subject articles were inadvertently found in petitioners house.

The issue of the reasonableness of the implementation of the search and seizure warrant,
i.e., whether the search was conducted in the presence of witnesses and whether the air
rifle which the trial court ordered to be returned to petitioner was indeed among the items
seized during the search, are matters that would be best determined in the pending
administrative case for grave misconduct and irregularity in the performance of duty against
the police officers who conducted the search.

3. Considering that the search and seizure warrant in this case was procured in violation of the
Constitution and the Rules of Court, all the items seized in petitioners house, being fruits
of the poisonous tree, are inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

Finally, the Court notes that among the items seized by the officers were four pcs. of
disposable lighter and unestimated numbers of cellophane used for packing of shabu. These
items are not contraband per se, nor objects in connection with the offense of illegal possession
of firearms for which the warrant was issued. Moreover, it is highly preposterous to assume
that these items were used in connection with offenses involving illegal drugs. Even granting
that they were, they would still be inadmissible against the petitioner for being products of an
illegal search. Hence, the subject articles should be returned to petitioner.[40]

Potrebbero piacerti anche